Munich Personal RePEc Archive
Telecommunication Media Choice
Behaviour in Academia. An
Austrian-Swiss Comparison
Fischer, Manfred M. and Maggi, Rico and Rammer,
Christian
Vienna University of Economics and Business, University of Lugano,
Vienna University of Economics and Business
1991
Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/77827/
MPRA Paper No. 77827, posted 23 Mar 2017 18:26 UTC
I
I
lnstitut fur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeographie Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien
Vorstand: o.Univ.Prof. Dr. Manfred M. Fischer A - 1090 Wien, Augasse 2-6, Tel. (0222) 313 36 - 4836
I J
- WSG 9/90
Telecommunication Media Choice
Behaviour in Academia:
~-
An Austrian-Swiss Comparison
Manfred M. Fischer, Rico Maggi
and Christian Rammer
l------) WSG-Discussion Paper 9
January 198 I -
ISBN 3 85037 009 7
Introduction
The explosion of activities associated with the production, processing and
transfer of information has been matched by the development of inexpensive
and relatively simple to use new information technologies in the 1980s which
have provided inter alia new telecommunication services available to
consumers. Despite the interest in and use of the new telecommunication
media such as electronic mail, telefax and various forms of teleconferencing,
there has been little research exploring the impact of such new electronic
media on communication behaviour. Moreover, there is a lack of conceptual
development which explains choice behaviour relating to these media at the
individual level. There is an evident need for a conceptualization which
attempts to explain under which communication contexts specific
telecommunication media choices are made and how these choices are
made.
The Department of Economic and Social Geography at the Vienna University
of Economics and Business Administration and the Socio-Economic Institute
at the University of Zurich are currently making more substantial efforts to fill
this gap in the literature by carrying out a joint research project on
communication behaviour in universities. The research is undertaken within
the Network on European Communication and Transport Activity Research
(NECTAR), a scientific network consisting of scholars from 19 countries who
are sponsered by the European Science Foundation.
The paper presents a general methodology for the analysis of communication
media choice behaviour in academia which integrates an experimental
design procedure into a discrete choice framework. The approach is micro
based and introduces various institutional, mobility-related, time and cost
barriers as shift variables. The university setting was chosen to be an
appropriate starting point from which to empirically test the methodology.
For this purpose, face-to-face interviews were conducted in three major
universities in Austria (University of Vienna, Technical University of Vienna,
Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration) and in
Switzerland (University of Zurich, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
University of Fribourg). In contrast to Fischer et al. (1990) the major focus in
this contribution is on cross-national differences in media choice behaviour.
1
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the conceptual
framework and the methodology. The third section describes the empirical
context and presents the analysis of the data and discussion of the results
while some general conclusions are presented in the final section.
Conceptual Framework and Methodology
In accordance with Fischer et al. (1990) the communication media choice
process is conceptualized in this paper as including the following stages (see
Figure 1 ):
First, the communication initiator becomes aware of a need to communicate in
a specific context. The initiator has individual characteristics (especially
characteristics such as profession and status, age, keyboard and typing skills,
attitudes towards computer technology) and works in a department with
specific characteristics (especially concerning cost control norms, media
access and usage rules etc.).
Second, given the initiator's awareness of the communication context it is
postulated that characteristics of the message to be communicated (such as
its complexity, volume, urgency and confidentiality) and characteristics of the
initiator-recipient relationship (such as status effects, location of the recipient,
familiarity with the recipient, awareness of recipient's media dislikes)
influence the formation of communication media preferences.
Third, the initiator is assumed to have knowledge of the characteristics of the
communication media. The conceptualization focuses on perceptions and
feelings related to media characteristics rather than objective characteristics
(such as cost of use, accessibility, ease of use, reliability of time delivery,
reliability of success delivery). The link between objective and perceived
characteristics is very difficult to analyse and outside the scope of the study.
Finally, there are three types of constraints acting on the preferences, namely
institutional constraints, time and cost related constraints. The variables
2
w
Characteristics of the
Communication
Activity
Characteristics of the
Initiator-Recipient
Relationship
Figure 1: A Conceptual Framework for Media Choice Behaviour
Characteristics
of the Initiator
Characteristics of the
Organisational Unit
! c::J
Feelings about
theMedia
Institutional
Related
Technical and Other
Characteristics
l Perceptions of
Media Characteristics
Time
Related ~ ~
Table 1: Important Variables Characterizing the Media Choice Situation
Important Variables
A. Communication Context
Characteristics of the Communication Activity
• Complexity of Communication
• Volume of Communication • Urgency
• Confidentiality
Characteristics of the Initiator-Recipient Relationship
* Status Effects
* Location of the Recipient
• Familiarity with the Recipient • Awareness of Recipient's Media Dislikes
B. Communication Initiator
Characteristics of the Initiator
* Profession and Status * Age • Sex
* Keyboard and Typing Skills
• Attitudes towards Computer Technology
Characteristics of the Organisational Unit
* Cost Control Norms • Secretarial Availability
• Media Access and Usage Rules
C. Communication Media
Feelings about the Communication Media
• Trendiness of the Media
• Familiarity with the Media
Perceptions of the Communication Media
• Cost of Use
• Accessibility
• Ease of Use
• Reliability of lime Delivery
• Reliability of Success Delivery
4
considered to be important for modelling communication media choice in
academia are summarized in Table 1.
Testing the conceptual framework is based on a micro-based approach which
combines the stated preference data and the discrete choice modelling
approaches. The stated preference data approach widely used in market
research offers an attractive empirical setting in which individual
communication behaviour can be analyzed within the context of discrete
choice modelling (see for example Bates 1988; Hensher et al. 1988;
Wardman 1988).
The Stated Preference Data Approach
The stated preference data approach enables to analyse different
communication media choice situations while allowing to determine the
influence of contextual variables. A basic feature of this approach is that
individuals are exposed to a set of hypothetical choice experiments in form of
either preference ranking/rating or choice selection generated by some
controlled experimental design procedure so that the independent variables
can be made truly independent. Of course, it is important that the choice
experiments realistically approximate actual communication situations.
Choice selection designs used here are the easiest to complete and the best
understood. Survey respondents had to respond to multiple communication
contexts, each described by carefully chosen independent variables.
Behavioural responses were then measured in reference to these
experimentally designed choice contexts rather than in actual communication
situations. Theoretical reasoning and exploratory analysis revealed that
confidentiality of communication, urgency of communication, complexity of the
content of communication and volume of the message were important
contextual variables to be used to design the questionnaire contexts. Each of
the variables (with two predefined attribute levels) were incorporated into an
experimental design for the media choice situation with 24 = 16 different
hypothetical choice contexts (see Table 2).
5
Table 2: The Fractional Design for Media Choice
Block Confidentiality Urgency Complexity Volume
Block confidential urgent simple short
Block 2 not confidential not urgent complex long
Block 3 confidential not urgent simple short
Block 4 not confidential urgent complex long
Block 5 confidential urgent simple long
Block 6 not confidential not urgent complex short
Block 7 confidential not urgent simple long
Block 8 not confidential urgent complex short
Block 9 confidential urgent complex short
Block 1 O not confidential not urgent simple long
Block 11 confidential not urgent complex short
Block 12 not confidential urgent simple long
Block 13 confidential urgent complex long
Block 14 not confidential not urgent simple short
Block 15 confidential not urgent complex long
Block 16 not confidential urgent simple short
6
Each questionnaire contained two media choice contexts. Each choice
context was presented on a card, in terms of a short description of each
context variable and - if possible - a pictorial or graphical representation. An
example of the wording of one of these contexts is presented below:
A colleague you already know for some time is organising a one-day symposium where you will take part and present a paper. The symposium will take place in three weeks time. The organizer would like to send the abstracts to all participants a good time before the symposium starts so that they can serve as a basis for discussion. You have prepared two pages, containing a short text, one illustration and one table. Your colleague is working at the University of Munich. The abstract should reach him within the time period of two weeks.
The second context in this pair was composed of exactly the opposite set of
levels on each of the four variables (simple, confidential, urgent and long
message). Each of these pairs of contexts were equally distributed throughout
the questionnaire and randomly assigned to the interviewees. Interviewers
reported only few problems with the choice experiment. Respondents were
also asked a variety of personal background questions.
The Discrete Choice Modelling Approach
Discrete choice models have been applied almost exclusively to observed
choices. Such an approach has obvious limitations for predicting demand for
a new event, such as the introduction of radically new telecommunication
media. There is, however, no logical reason why the discrete choice
modelling approach cannot be applied to analyse data from an appropriately
designed choice experiment. Experimental design procedures for choice
models have been considered recently by Louviere and Hensher (1983).
Discrete choice models such as multinomial logit, nested multinomial logit and
multinomial probit models are now well established model approaches which
are applied in a wide range of fields (see Ben-Akiva and Lerman 1985,
Fischer and Nijkamp 1985). Thus, it is not necessary to review the discrete
choice modelling approach in detail, except for some specifics of the
application in the empirical section of this paper.
It is assumed that an individual's preferences among the available
communication media alternatives (traditional mail, courier mail, telephone,
facsimile and electronic mail) can be described by a utility function and that
7
the individual selects the alternative with the greatest utility. The utility of an
alternative is represented as the sum of a deterministic component and a
random component:
Uia = V(Xia. 8) + Eia =Via + Eia ( 1)
where V(Xia. 8) = Via is the deterministic component of utility, Xia a vector of
observed characteristics of the individual i and the communication media
alternative a, 8 a vector of parameters and Eia is the random component
relating to faulty perception of the choice options, idiosyncratic preferences,
neglected choice-relevant attributes etc. The parameters are estimated from
the data by means of the method of maximum likelihood.
In general, it is assumed that the choice structures are compensatory in
nature, i.e. v is linear in 8:
V(Xia. 8) = L 8k Xiak
k
where 8k is the k-th component of 8 and Xiak is the k-th component of Xia·
(2)
In this paper it is assumed that the E's are independently and identically
Gumbel distributed. Thus we confine ourselves to the linear-in-parameters
multinomial logit (MNL) model, the simplest and most convenient functional
form of a discrete choice model:
P (a I Xia,8) =exp Via I I: exp Vib bEA
(3)
where P(a I Xia,8) denotes the probability that a randomly chosen individual i
will choose alternative a from the set A of communication media. The details of
the data and model specifications are discussed later.
8
Analysis and Results
The target population of this study is made up by the scholars associated with
an Austrian or Swiss university. The survey population is restricted to those
scholars associated with one of the following universities: University of
Vienna, Technical University of Vienna, Vienna University of Economics and
Business Administration, University of Zurich, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology (Zurich) and University of Fribourg. The sample design used
relies on exogenous stratification (proportionate stratification). The
dimensions for stratification were the status of the scholar (full professor and
assistant professor/docent), the type of university and the type of department.
The sampling fractions were chosen to be equal to the population shares.
Consequentely, the sample likelihood of the stratified sample reduces to that
of random sampling (see Ben-Akiva and Lerman 1985, p. 235). The drawing
of observations out of each stratum was done randomly and produced a total
of 326 questionnaires.
In order to clarify the effects of context variation on media choice preferences
several context-specific MNL-models were estimated. Borsch-Supan's
HLOGIT program was used for estimating the models. HLOGIT estimates
maximum likelihood parameters, utilizing a Marquardt-type modified Newton
Raphson procedure. All MNL-models require one alternative in the choice set
to serve as a base of the utility scale. The traditional mail option is deliberately
chosen as the base alternative.
Three standard goodness of fit measures were used: Rho-squared, rho
squared bar and the prediction success. Rho-squared is the standard
likelihood ratio index which indicates how well the model explains
preferences relative to the market shares model where all parameters in the
model except the alternative specific constants are set to zero. Rho-squared
(p2) is defined as
(4)
/\
where L* (8) denotes the value of the log likelihood function at its maximum
and L (C) the value of the log likelihood function when only alternative
specific constants are included. This measure is useful in comparing two
specifications. Even if there are no general guidelines for when a p2-value is
9
sufficiently high, McFadden (1979) has suggested that values of between 0.2
and 0.4 can be considered to represent a very good fit. A major shortcoming of
this measure, however, lies in the fact that it will always increase or at least
stay the same whenever new variables are added to the utility function. For
this reason we also use the adjusted rho-squared bar
p-2 = 1 - (L * (S) - K) IL (c) (5)
with K denoting the number of parameters. Another informal goodness-of-fit
measure refers to the percentage of correct ex-post predictions (the so-called
prediction success) which counts those observations for which the model
predicted the same communication medium choice as was actually observed.
Three types of variables are taken into consideration. The first type of
variables attempts to measure the influence of feelings about and perceptions
of communication media characteristics. The generic variable (familiarity with
the communication media) and the alternative-specific variable accessibility,
specific to e-mail, are included. The second type of variables refers to
characteristics of the message, such as confidentiality and volume of
communication as well as the urgency and complexity of communication.
These variables are obviously alternative specific. The third type concerns
alternative specific constants. They are introduced for all alternatives except
traditional mail which is used as the reference alternative. They capture the
effects of unobserved factors and individual idiosyncracies influencing choice
decisions.
Three major types of media choice models were estimated:
* general media choice models with the base model estimated on the
full sample size of 645 observations (326 questionnaires a two choices
minus 7 missing data) and the national-split models relying only on
national segments of the data,
* urgency-split context choice models with the base model version
relying on segments of the data corresponding to the urgency context and
the national-split models on national segments of these data,
10
* complexity-split context choice models with the base model version
relying on segments of the data corresponding to the complexity context
and the national-split models on national segments of these data.
The national split models may be used to clarify country-specific effects on
media preferences.
The results of the 15 communication media choice models are presented in
Tables 3, 4 and 5. Table 3 shows the parameter estimates and the goodness
of fit statistics used for the general choice models, Table 4 those for the
urgency-split context and Table 5 those for the complexity-split context choice
models. The urgency-split context models compare urgent and non-urgent
communication contexts, while the complexity-split contexts models the
importance of variables for complex and simple communication contexts.
The general, the urgency-split and the complexity-split media choice models
perform reasonably well according to the goodness-of-fit measures used, the
Austrian models generally slightly better than the Swiss ones. The values of
the adjusted rho-squared range from 0.17 (urgency-split media choice models
for Switzerland} and 0.47 (not complex message media choice model for
Austria). All the significant coefficients (0.05 level of significance) have the
anticipated sign. Positive coefficients reflect positive marginal utilities and
negative coefficients negative marginal utilities.
Analysis of the media perceptions showed that traditional mail, with over 39 %
of the preferences, was the dominant communication medium. Facsimilie and
telephone were preferred in about 23 % of the cases, each, while e-mail and
courier mail, each with about 7 %, were preferred relatively infrequently. There
are only slight cross-national differences.
Tables 3 - 5 clearly indicate the influence of different institutional
environments in Austria and Switzerland on preferences for communication
media through varying levels of significance of the explanatory variables.
Urgency of the message is the only variable highly significant in all contexts
across the two countries (see Tables 3 and 4). This indicates that this variable
is important regardless of the situation. The variable tends to be slightly more
important in the Austrian than in the Swiss case. The same is true for the
variables complexity and volume of communication (specific to telephone).
11
Table 3: Parameter Estimates of the General Media Choice Models: The Base Model and the Single National Models (t-values in parentheses)
Variables
Familiarity with the Communication Media
Accessibility to the Media (1 if located in the organisational unit, O otherwise)
Confidentiality of the Message (1 if confidential, 0 otherwise)
Urgency of the Message (1 if urgent, O otherwise)
Complexity of the Message (1 if complex, o otherwise)
Volume of the Message (1 if long, O otherwise)
Alternative Specific Constant
Log-Likelihood at Zero Log-Likelihood at Constant Log-Likelihhod at Convergence
Generic or Alternative Specific to
generic
courier mail telephone
fax e-mail
courier mail telephone
fax e-mail
courier mail telephone
fax e-mail
courier mail telephone
fax e-mail
courier mail telephone
fax e-mail
Rho Squared at Market Shares (adjusted) Prediction Success ( in %)
Observed (Predicted) Media Preferences (in %): Courier Mail Telephone Fax Electronic Mail Traditional Mail
Number of Observations
t-value significant at the 0.05 level
Base Model
0.27 (4.21 )*
1.83 (3.35)*
0.01 (1.22) 1.05 (3.17)*
-1.52 (-4.85)* -0.80 (-1.18)
3.78 (8.08)* 3.22 (8.85)* 4.38 (12.49)* 2.81 (7.26)*
0.51 (1.24) -3.22 (-8.59)* 0.74 (2.92)*
-1.34 (-3.47)*
1.13 (2.43)* -4.28 (-9.25)* 0.74 (2.26)*
-0.64 (-1.69)
-4.31 (-6.24)* -0.23 (-0.84) -2.58 (-5.90)* -2.35 (-3. 76)*
-1038.09 -919.60 -543.25
0.41 (0.39) 68.7
7.1 (2.6) 23.0 (28.7) 23.3 (27.3)
7.4 (1.4) 39.2 (40.0)
645
12
Austrian Universities
0.38 (4.39)*
1.93 (2.97)*
0.72 (1.18) 1.48 (3.02)*
-1.88 (-4.29)* -1.18 (-2.28)*
4.34 (6.24)* 3.61 (6.93)* 4.51 (9.44)* 2.82 (5.31 )*
0.52 (0.92) -3.45 (-6.51 )* 0.59 (1.39)
-1.85 (-3.48)*
1.68 (2.25)* -5.54 {-7.02)* 0.59 (1.32)
-0.55 (-1.09)
-4.93 (-4.54)* -0.28 (-0.74) -1.89 (-3.37)* -1.61 (-2.16)*
-597.10 -538.56 -287.52
0.47 (0.43) 71.2
7.5 (8.9) 23.2 (27.5) 24.0 (20.8)
8.4 (4.0) 36.9 (38.8)
371
Swiss Universities
0.17 (1.55)
1.82 (1. 72)
0.27 (0.46) 0.68 (1.46)
-1.02 (-2.23)* -0.27 (-0.46)
3.16 (4.91 )* 2.88 (5.54)* 4.37 (7.96)* 2.90 (4.70)*
0.50 (0.81) -3.24 (-5.67)* 0.92 (1.86)
-0.68 (-1.11)
0.59 (0.94) -3.27 (-5.66)* 0.99 (1.98)*
-0.62 (-1.03)
-3.74 (-4.09)* -0.20 (-0.51) -3.54 (-4.87)* -3.59 (-2.94)*
-440.99 -379.74 -238.19
0.38 (0.33) 70.4
6.6 (0.0) 22.6 (21.2) 22.3 (34.7)
6.2 (0.7) 42.3 (43.4)
274
Table 4: Parameter Estimates of the Urgency-Split Media Choice Models: The Base Models and the Single National Models (t-values in parentheses)
Variables
Familiarity with the Communication Media
Accessibility to the Media (1 if located in the organisational unit, 0 otherwise)
Confidentiality of the Message (1 if confidential, 0 otherwise)
Complexity of the Message (1 if complex, 0 otherwise)
Volume of the Message (1 if long, 0 otherwise)
Alternative Specific Constant
Generic or Alternative Specific to
generic
courier mail telephone
fax e-mail
courier mail telephone
fax e-mail
courier mail telephone
fax e-mail
courier mail telephone
fax e-mail
Base Models Urgent Not Urgent
Message Message
0.23 (2 .66)* 0.34 (3.39)*
2.19 (2.86)* 1.39 (1.76)
-0.37 (-0.62) 1.80 (1 .64) 0.15 (0.25) 1.45 (3.33)*
-2.15 (-4.18)* -1 .67 (-2.56)* -1.43 (-2.25)* -0.83 (-1.48)
0.02 (0.04) 0.67 (0.76) -3.70 (-5.57)* -3.10 (-6.12)* 0.18 (0.34) 1.26 (2.1 O)*
-2.00 (-2.92)* -1.02 (-1.91)
1.45 (2.45)* 1.52 (1.37) -4.03 (-5.73)* -3.93 (-5.99)* 1.23 (2.49)* 0.06 (0.12) 0.06 (0.09) -1 .17 (-2.22)*
0.18 (0.22) -5.57 (-3.57)* 3.80 (5 .44)* -0.55 (-1.70) 2.27 (3.38)* -2.43 (-3.78)* 0.55 (0.52) -1.82 (-2.24)*
Austrian Models Swiss Models Urgent Not Urgent Urgent Not Urgent
Message Message Message Message
0.36 (2.99)* 0.39 (3.13)* 0.09 (0.67) 0.33 (1.80)
2.64 (2.43)* 1.31 (1.58) 1.67 (1.51) 17.01 (0.00)
0.05 (0.05) 14.54 (0.02) -0.85 (-0.99) 1.32 (1.11) 1.24 (1 .23) 1.51 (2.59)* -0.74 (-0.91) 1.49 (2.27)*
-2.23 (-3.06)* -2.57 (-2.41)* -1 .94 (-2.68)* -0.76 (-0.82) -1 .94 (-2.00)* -0.84 (-1.27) -0.84 (-0.94) -1.21 (-1 .01)
-0.54 (-0.58) 0.02 (0.02) 0.16 (0 .18) 1.04 (0.87) -5.41 (-4.32)* -2.87 (-4.66)* -3.09 (-3.77)* -4.01 (-3.58)* -0.71 (-0.79) 0.70 (1.05) 0.70 (0 .97) 18.12 (0.00) -4.02 (-3.29)* -1 .12 (-1.74) -0.55 (-0.62) -0.87 (-0.85)
2.20 (2.27)* 0.27 (0.21) 0.57 (0.69) 17.44 (0.00) -5.88 (-4.69)* -19.16 (-0.01) -3.05 (-3.47)* -2.76 (-3.73)* 0.69 (0.97) 0.63 (0.95) 1.62 (2.32)* -0.89 (-0.97)
-0.48 (-0.46) -0.78 (-1 .24) 0.40 (0.45) -2.14 (-1.82)
0.26 (0.19) -16.95 (-0.02) 0.34 (0.31) -21.01 (-0.01) 4.90 (4.01 )* -0.46 (-1.09) 3.52 (3.87)* -0.80 (-1.54) 3.77 (3.38)* -1 .91 (-2.49)" 1.16 (1.29) -19.26 (-0.00) 2.11 (1.28) -1.35 (-1.54) -0.74 (-0.49) -17.78 (-0.00)
Table 4 (ctd.)
Log-Likelihood at Zero -518.24 -515.02 -297.75 -299.36 -220.49 -220.49 Log-Likelihood at Constant -454.30 -311.62 -259.24 -189.78 -193.99 -119.63 Log-Likelihood at Convergence -309.42 -225.27 -150.42 -129.55 -143.04 -81.70 Rho-Squared at Market Shares (adjusted) 0.32 (0.28) 0.28 (0.22) 0.42 (0.35) 0.32 (0.22) 0.26 (0.17) 0.32 (0.17) Prediction Success (in %) 64.0 76.8 66.5 74.7 63.5 78.8
Observed (Predicted) Media Preferences (in%) Courier Mail 12.1 (0.9) 2.2 (0.0) 13.5 (14.6) 1.6 (0.0) 10.2 (0.0) 2.9 (0.0) Telephone 29.5 (37.3) 16.4 (14.3) 129.2 (35.7) 17.1 (14.5) 29.9 (25.5) 15.3 (10.9) Fax 40.7 (57.1) 5.9 (0.0) 41.1 (43.2) 7.0 (0.0) 40.1 (59.9) 4.4 (0.0) Electronic Mail 9.0 (4.7) 5.9 (0.3) 9.2 (6.5) 7.5 (2.2) 8.8 (1 .5) 3.7 (0.0) Traditional Mail 8.7 (0.0) 69.6 (85.4) 7.0 (0.0) 66.7 (83.3) 11.0 (13.1) 73.7 (89.1)
Number of Observations 322 323 185 186 137 136
* t-value significant at the 0.05 level
Table 5: Parameter Estimates of the Complexity-Split Media Choice Models: The Base Models and the Single National Models (t-values in parentheses)
Variables Complex
Generic or Alternative
Base Models Complex Not Complex
Austrian Models Swiss Models Complex Not Complex Complex Not
Specific to Message Message Message Message Message Message
Familiarity with the generic 0.16 (1. 71) 0.45 (4.48)* 0.29 (2.32)* 0.53 (4.04)* 0.00 (0.02) 0.45 (2.60)* Communication Media
Accessibility to the Media e-mail 14.68 (0.03) 1.06 (1 .81) 14.99 (0.02) 1.42 (2.00)* 14.92 (0.02) 0.55 (0.49) (1 if located in the organisational unit, 0 otherwise)
Confidentiality of the Message courier mail -0.03 (-0.05) 1.89 (2.21 )* 0.28 (0.38) 1.45 (1 .16) -0.44 (-0.61) 1.87 (1.54) (1 if confidential, telephone 2.12 (2.69)* 0.80 (1 .89) 2.66 (2.44)* 0.79 (1 .21) 1.24 (1.06) 0.84 (1.48) 0 otherwise) fax -1.56 (-4.04)* -1.24 (-2.27)* -1.73 (-3.21 )* -2.46 (-2. 78)* -1.33 (-2.33)* -0.31 (-0.37)
e-mail -0.63 (-1 .09) -0.72 (-1.38) -0.76 (-0.90) -1 .73 (-2.15)* -0.54 (-0.65) 0.25 (0.30)
Urgency of the Message courier mail 3.53 (6.25)* 4.53 (5.11)* 4.11 (4.80)* 5.18 (3.97)* 2.98 (3.82)* 3.88 (3.16)*
(1 if urgent, telephone 2.64 (4.93)* 4.44 (6.83)* 2.58 (3.90)* 7.00 (5.60)* 3.33 (2.88)* 3.00 (4.30)* 0 otherwise) fax 3.95 (9.47)* 5.54 (7.84)* 4.07 (7.06)* 6.59 (5.76)* 3.91 (6.26)* 17.59 (0.04)
e-mail 2.24 (3.75)* 4.04 (6.31 )* 1.34 (1.42) 5.79 (5.05)* 3.00 (3.26)* 3.15 (3.48)*
Volume of the Message courier mail 1.34 (2.63)* 0.10 (0.09) 1.97 (2.53)* 13.10 (0.01) 0.60 (0.85) 0.10 (0.08) (1 if long, telephone -17.85 (-0.01) -4.90 (-7.93)* -18.98 (-0.01) -7.69 (-6.33)* -18.05 (-0.01) -3.22 (-4.91 )*
O otherwise) fax 0.93 (2.47)* -0.10 (-0.14) 1.03 (1.98)* -1.41 (-1 .53) 0.79 (1.43) 1.56 (1.26) e-mail 0.56 (0.96) -2.00 (-3.53)* 1.08 (1.21) -2.87 (-3.32)* 0.23 (0.28) -1.65 (-1.91)
Alternative Specific courier mail -3.75 (-5.61 )* -4.24 (-3.17)* -4.45 (-4.13)* -16.56 (-0.01) -3.08 (-3.65)* -4.21 (-2.51)*
Constant telephone -4.00 (-4.94)* -0.21 (-0.65) -4.29 (-3.84)* -0.04 (-0.08) -4.14 (-3 .03)* -0.50 (-1 .07)
fax -1.91 (-4.87)* -2.28 (-3.09)* -1.66 (-3.19)* -0.38 (-0.50) -2.22 (-3 .67)* -16.86 (-0.04)
e-mail -16.99 (-0.03) -1.10 (-1 .61) -17.10 (-0.02) -0.20 (-0.24) -17.78 (-0.02) -1.92 (-1.49)
Table 5 (ctd.)
Log-Likelihood at Zero -523.07 -515.02 -300.96 -296.14 -222.10 -218.88 Log-Likelihood at Constant -422.10 -448.57 -246.71 -266.47 -173.43 -179.46 Log-Likelihood at Convergence -279.34 -248.18 -148.71 -124.41 -122.72 -105.96 Rho-Squared at Market Shares (adjusted) 0.34 (0.30) 0.45 (0.41) 0.40 (0.32) 0.53 (0.47) 0.29 (0.19) 0.41 (0.31) Prediction Success (in %) 69 .8 70.3 70.6 73.4 69.6 73.5
Observed (Predicted) Media Preferences (in %) Courier Mail 9.2 (0.3) 5.0 (4.4) 9.6 (7.0) 5.5 (7.6) 8.7 (0.0) 4.4 (0.0) Telephone 8.9 (13.8) 37.2 (43.4) 11.2 (13.4) 35.3 (39.1) 5.8 (14.5) 39.7 (39.0)
Fax 31.4 (36.0) 15.0 (18.1) 31.6 (29.9) 16.3 (14.7) 31.2 (35.5) 13.2 (22.8)
Electronic Mail 4.6 (0.0) 10.3 (4.1) 3.7 (0.0) 13.0 (9.8) 5.8 (0.0) 6.6 (1.5)
Traditional Mail 45.9 (49.9) 32.5 (30.0) 43.9 (49.7) 29.9 (28.8) 48.5 (50.0) 36.0 (36.8)
Number of Observations 325 320 187 184 138 136
• t-value significant at the 0.05 level
The negative signs of the parameter estimates indicate a decrease in the odds
of choosing telephone if the message is complex or long, respectively. The
context variable confidentiality of the message seems to be less important,
especially in Swiss universities. In these universities only confidentiality
(specific to fax) is more important in urgent and complex, rather than in non
urgent and simple communication situations.
Familiarity with the communication media is significant in the Austrian case,
but much less important compared to the above mentioned communication
context variables. The second communication media characteristic used
attempts to measure the influence of the accessibility to e-mail as perceived
by the recipients. This alternative-specific variable seems to have an important
influence on preference formation in the Austrian context, rather than in the
Swiss one.
The coefficients of some alternative specific constants (in the general media
choice models, for example, those specific to courier mail, fax and e-mail) are
significantly different from zero which indicates that some choice-relevant
influences have not been captured. It is worthwile to mention that several
other variables had been considered such as perceived cost of use and
reliability of success delivery, but they were found to be unimportant in all
contexts.
The results clearly indicate the value of the methodology suggested to
estimate conext-specific models. The most important empirical finding is the
significant variation in the relative importance of the variables across contexts
in general and cross-national contexts in particular.
Summary and Conclusions
The methodology suggested for analyzing telecommunication media choice
behaviour in academia provides an attractive approach to analyse the
context-specific nature of the communication media choice process and to
identify cross-national differences in communication choice behaviour. The
methodology allows for the influence of context at two levels. First, a range of
contexts is chosen at the data collection stage, with contexts created by the
use of an experimental design procedure. Second, the experimental design
allows for choice models to be estimated on context-specific segments of the
data by disaggregating the data set across some context variables of interest.
The empirical results clearly indicate that communication media choice
behaviour is very context-dependent. Several cross-national differences in
choice behaviour were identified. First, the media characteristics familiarity
with the communication media and accessibility to the media (specific to e
mail) were found to be important in explaining preferences in Austrian
universities (familiarity with the communication media regardless of the
communication situation), but relatively unimportant in Swiss universities.
Second, the communication context variables confidentiality, urgency,
complexity and volume tend to be more important in the Austrian than in the
Swiss context. Finally, it is worthwile to mention that in Switzerland there is a
higher preference for traditional mail while in Austrian academia a higher
propensity can be observed to choose a medium other than traditional mail.
Although the approach suggested extends our knowledge significantly, there
are several complex issues which remain largely unaddressed. These issues
include inter alia the choice of multiple communication media and the
consideration of new advanced telecommunication media such as
multimedia, multipoint desktop teleconferencing which enables to connect
more sites together simultaneously, but which is not yet used in Austrian and
Swiss academia.
Acknowledgements. The authors acknowledge a grant from the 'Fonds zur Forderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung' (Austria).
18
REFERENCES
Bates, J.J. (1988): Stated preference techniques and the analysis of consumer
choice, in Wrigley, N. (ed), Store Choice, Store Location and Market
Analysis, pp. 187-202. London and New York: Routledge.
Ben-Akiva, M. and Lerman, S.R. (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and
Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge (Ma.) and London (England):
The MIT Press.
Fischer, M.M., Maggi, R. and Rammer, C. (1990): Context specific media
choice and barriers to communication in universities, The Annals of
Regional Science 24, pp. 253-269.
Fischer, M.M. and Nijkamp, P. (1985): Developments in explanatory discrete
spatial data and choice analysis, Progress in Human Geography 9, pp.
515-551.
Garrison, W.L. and Deaking, E. (1988): Travel, work, and telecommunications:
A view of the electronics revolution and its potential impacts,
Transportation Research 22A, pp. 237-245.
Hensher, D.A., Barnard, P.O. and Truong, T.P. (1988): The role of stated
preference methods in studies of travel choice, Journal of Transport
Economics and Policy 22, pp. 45-58.
Horowitz, J. (1982): Specification tests for probabilistic choice models,
Transportation Research A 16 A, pp. 383-394.
Jussawalla, M. and Ebenfield, H. (eds.) (1984): Communication and
Information Economics. Amsterdam, New York and Oxford: North-Holland.
Lerman, S.R. and Manski, C.F. (1979): Sample design for discrete choice
analysis of travel behavior: The state of the art, Transportation Research A
13 A, pp. 29-44.
19
Louviere, J.J. and Woodworth, G. (1983): Design and analysis of simulated
consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on
aggregate data, Journal of Marketing Research 20, pp. 350-367.
Louviere, J.J. and Hensher, D.A. (1983): Using discrete choice models with
experimental design data to forecast consumer demand for a unique
cultural event, Journal of Consumers Research 10, pp. 348-361.
McFadden, D. (1979): Quantitative methods for analysing travel behaviour of
individuals. Some recent developments, in Hensher, D.A. and Stopher,
P.R. (eds.), Behavioural Travel Modelling, pp. 279-318. London: Croom
Helm.
Moore, A. and Jovanis, P.P. (1988): Modelling media choices in business
organizations: Implications for analyzing telecommunications -
transportation interactions, Transportation Research A 22A, pp. 257-273.
Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P. and Salomon, I. (1990): Barriers to Communication:
Conceptual Issues, The Annals of Regional Science 24, pp. 237-252.
Salonom, I. (1986): Telecommunications and travel relationships: A review,
Transportation Research 20A, pp. 223-238.
Wardman, M., (1988): A comparison of revealed preference and stated
preference models of travel behaviour, Journal of Transport Economics
and Policy 22, pp. 71-91.
20
Top Related